Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 17:
June 03 2014
The Enquiry resumed today after a
week’s break for the Bank Holiday and half term, taking up a new witness on the
subject of heritage, Mr Philip Ward, leader of the Leeds City Council
Conservation team. After the
introduction with Mr Walton, Counsel for the Applicant, taking him through his
proofs of evidence, Gregory Jones QC occupied the remainder of the day in cross
examination of this witness.
The audio recordings of today’s
sessions are linked below. Those of a
more observant disposition may notice that the URLs give ‘day 16’ which is a
clerical error on my part that was not spotted until all the uploads had been
completed. However I have corrected the
actual titles on the page for each audio.
My commentary on the day follows below the links.
In the first morning session of
day17 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 03 2014, Mr Philip Ward, witness
for Heritage matters presents his evidence with the assistance of Mr Walton for
the Applicant, and is then cross examined by Gregory Jones QC for First West
Yorkshire on the methodology used in the assessment of the heritage assets
which would be affected.
In the late morning session of
day 17 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 03 2014, Mr Philip Ward continues
to be cross examined by Gregory Jones QC, covering details of what exactly the
curtilage of Rose Court mansion extends to and how the gate piers would be
affected by being moved up to five meters as is proposed.
In the early afternoon session of
day 17 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 03 2014, Gregory Jones QC continues
to cross examine Mr Philip Ward on details of the impact of the NGT
trolleybuses and their cable fixings on buildings in Millennium Square such as
the Museum and others.
In the late afternoon session of
day 17 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 03 2014, Gregory Jones QC
continues to press Mr Philip Ward on heritage matters such as the effect of
cumulative changes, the impact of wires on visual appearance of listed
buildings, whether recording is sufficient mitigation to balance destruction
and whether the building of a replica of a listed structure can really be
called 'relocation'.
A new phase of the Enquiry began
today, with not only a new witness and subject, Heritage, but also an
additional Inspector, Mrs Katie Peerless, who will be presiding over
proceedings for the week that this subject will be examined and will return for
another stint after the summer holiday break.
The sheer amount of detail which
was raked over today in the examination was quite remarkable. Rose Court mansion on Headingley Lane which
was scrutinised with regard to its curtilage and the two gate piers that are
proposed to be moved closer to the mansion caused a great deal of
discussion. I was planning to include
questions on matters around what is ‘substantial harm’ in my own cross
examination later this week, but Mr Jones has dealt with this so well that
there is not a great deal I will be able to add. We were led into a curious world where the piers (grade 2 listed)
might not be in sufficiently good state after being demolished to be
reconstructed in the new place closer to the mansion, and that replicas might
be built but this would be called ‘relocation’ or ‘reinstatement’ instead, even
though no fragment of the original survived.
Mr Ward said near the beginning
of his cross examination that he was an independent witness and not a witness
for NGT and yet he did seem to be taking a very soft line on what was or was
not ‘substantial harm’ when it came to demolishing buildings or parts of them. The old coach house near Rose Court School
(not to be confused with the mansion at the other end of the block), probably
the oldest building in the section at pre-1835, is proposed to have two bays of
seven entirely demolished and the gable end set back by several meters, and it
was suggested that architectural recording of the building was sufficient
mitigation, while Mr Jones on the contrary put it to the witness that this
would be actually ‘substantial harm’ and could not really be mitigated by such
measures.
The visual amenity of Millennium
Square and the Museum, formerly the Civic Theatre, was examined and Mr Ward was
reluctant to acknowledge that cables would be to the detriment of the
appearance of the Museum. This is like
shooting fish in a barrel for Mr Jones ~ surely arguing that cables, wherever
they are strung, are not unsightly and restrictive to the view, is a hiding to
nothing and these witnesses shouldn’t waste our time trying to persuade us it
is only a matter of taste and that some people don’t find them a problem.
Early on Mr Ward admitted that
the impact of the trolleybus on Headingley Castle, another listed building,
would be ‘harmful’. There were so many
individual detriments that Mr Jones invoked English Heritage on the effects of
cumulative change, which would certainly apply to the effects accrued, and he
drew attention on more than one occasion to what looked like opportunism on the
part of the Applicant. At one point Mr
Ward actually made a remark which sounded like he was identifying himself with
the Applicant. Whether this was just
poor phrasing on his part or a Freudian slip disclosing the truth, I shall
leave to the listener, who can peruse and examine the recordings at their
leisure and draw their own conclusions on these matters.
A little side trip that has been
going on in the background for the last couple of days is that I appear to have
acquired a stalker on twitter who keeps accusing me of being selfish for
wanting to preserve our city from damage and demanding that I accept the false
choice of trolleybus or banishment to outer darkness. Twitter is a great vehicle for getting out little quanta of
information, announcements, links and so forth, but it is not a medium designed
for in depth debate and discussion. The
comments rapidly became personal, and multiplied in number. I’m a bit of a newbie to tweeting, so shoot
me if I’m breaking any taboos. When I
saw three tweets at me in my email inbox all the space of a few minutes this
evening, I thought ‘this has gone too far’ and deleted the lot without reading
them.
Do people really think that
trolling and harassing people for having different views is the way to conduct
affairs or how to get your views across to the world? I don’t know, perhaps some do, but if they want to engage me in
debate, I would gladly take them on here on my own page if they would care to
post comments. I’m still waiting for
the Tbus lobby on skyscrapercity to make a response, but none of them have
dared to yet, although I see from my analytics that they are one of my largest
referring sites, so hi there!
And if Mr 3chord Ryan from
twitter wants to engage in debate, he is welcome. I have only one stipulation though ~ his comments must be longer
than 140 characters in length. And
they should address the question of what NGT want to do to the people of the
Whitfields in Hunslet, where they propose to run a trolleybus through their
pedestrianised precinct (which has been that way for thirty four years). Anyone supporting such a gross act of
disrespect should think about how they
would like such a thing done to them, their relatives or community. This is where the rubber meets the road
folks. Those people attempting to
enforce this on communities as if they were serfs and chattels should really
have a good think about the kind of morals they employ in their lives. Whether it is really acceptable to go
forcing unpleasant ‘solutions’ on people because it suits your own megalomaniac
fantasies, or whether they should get a new set of morals which actually treats
communities and individuals with respect and doesn’t put them down like they
are nothing. Only then can we actually
start talking about transport solutions that serve the citizens and communities
of Leeds, and not just service commuters who pass through by destroying the
inconvenience of what is in the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment